Wrisper v. State
Decision Date | 12 November 1941 |
Docket Number | 13920. |
Parties | WRISPER v. STATE. |
Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
The evidence, although circumstantial, being sufficient to prove the corpus delicti and the guilt of the defendant, and the verdict having the approval of the trial judge, the judgment denying the motion for new trial, based on the general grounds only, will be affirmed.
Will Wrisper was charged with the murder alleged to have been committed July 29, 1940, of Mattie Parker by assaulting her 'with a wooden bludgeon and metal bludgeon and other blunt instruments, including bricks, rocks, and brickbats and with a knife, dirk, razor, and other sharp instruments and with a gun and pistol, and with human hands.' The jury returned a verdict finding the defendant guilty and recommending him to the mercy of the court. The defendant's motion for new trial, based on the general grounds, was overruled and he excepted. The following narrative gleaned from the evidence sufficiently states the case: The parties living together separated in the summer of 1940. Mattie went to live with another woman, Gilly Ann Ellis, upstairs in a house, 1200 of block Broadway between Bay and Hazel Streets. The defendant lived about two blocks away in one room of a two-room house in Parker's alley beyond Hazel Street crossing. Both women were servants of Mrs. Watkins of 756 Mulberry Street. After the separation the defendant, on June 26, assaulted Mattie, on account of which a charge was made in the city court of Macon. The defendant entered a plea of guilty June 28, and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment, to be released on probation, provided he paid a fine of a specified amount. After being released, the defendant persistently pursued and threatened to kill Mattie until, on account of her declared fears of defendant, Mrs. Watkins commenced the custom of carrying the two servants to their home. On these occasions she would see defendant standing at the edge of the sidewalk at the Thomas drugstore on the corner of Oglethorpe and Broadway streets, near the home of the servants. The servant Mattie disappeared on Monday night, July 29. About a week before that date and again on Friday afternoon before that date, while Mrs. Watkins was carrying the servants to their home, they passed the Thomas drug-store; whereupon the defendant, who was standing at the sidewalk, called to Mattie and 'told her she need not go up the stairs; he was going to get her.' On Monday afternoon, July 29, Mrs. Watkins again saw the defendant standing at the drug-store corner as she passed by carrying the servants to their home. After leaving them Mrs. Watkins never again saw Mattie. On the Sunday immediately preceding the Monday on which Mattie disappeared, Thomas Taylor saw the defendant pursuing Mattie with a brick and with a 'switch-blade knife,' and threatening to kill her. Other recent threats by the defendant to kill Mattie, several of them accompanied by display of a knife, need not be stated specifically. About 8:30 o'clock Monday night, July 29, 1940, Mattie, being in the room of the woman Gilly Ann Ellis, left and went to a filling-station near by, to get some ice. On returning with the ice she stated to Gilly Ann: See left, and did not come back. That was the last seen of Mattie alive. After the disappearance of Mattie and before discovery of the body, Mrs. Watkins saw defendant and asked him 'if he had seen Mattie, and he went behind a truck and would not say anything.'
Adeline Brooks testified:
Ruby Floyd testified, that on Wednesday following the disappearance, seeing the defendant, she inquired, "Have you seen Mattie?' and he said 'No', and he said, 'If I could see her I would go off in the swamp and beat her half to death,' and I said, 'Why?' and he said, 'Because she had me locked up,' and he said, 'That is a dirty woman; she didn't have no business to lock me up,' and I said, 'Mrs. Watkins wanted her to go to work,' and he said, 'She ain't going to work any more, * * * and she ain't going to stay upstairs any more."
L. H. Chapman testified:
There was evidence tending to identify the hat, shoes, belt, and teeth found at the body, and cloth contained in the bottle, as those of Mattie at the time of her disappearance.
Milton M. Ferrell, Harry S. Strozier, and Thomas W. Johnson, all of Macon, for plaintiff in error.
Chas. H. Garrett, Sol. Gen., of Macon, Ellis G. Arnall, Atty. Gen., E. J. Clower, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Cleburne E. Gregory, Jr., of Decatur, for defendant in error.
Before there can be a lawful conviction of a crime, the corpus delicti, that is, that the crime charged has been committed by some one, must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Shedd v. State, 178 Ga. 653, 173 S.E. 847. In homicide cases it must be proved that the death was caused or accompanied by violence or other direct criminal agency of some...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Townsend v. State, 47424
...that may be drawn from the proved facts, but only necessary to exclude reasonable inferences and reasonable hypotheses. Wrisper v. State, 193 Ga. 157, 164, 17 S.E.2d 714, and cases there cited.' Dunson v. State, 202 Ga. 515, 521, 43 S.E.2d 504, 'All that the law requires is that the evidenc......
-
Mickle v. Moore
... ... It is not sufficient to urge ... grounds of objection for the first time in a motion for a new ... trial. Phillips v. State, 102 Ga. 594, 27 S.E. 699; ... Bourquin v. Bourquin, 110 Ga. 440, 35 S.E. 710; ... White v. State, 116 Ga. 573, 42 S.E. 751; Wynne ... v. State, ... ...
-
Richardson v. State
...The corpus delicti must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt and may be shown by indirect as well as direct evidence. Wrisper v. State, 193 Ga. 157, 161, 17 S.E.2d 714 (1941). To establish the corpus delicti in a homicide prosecution, the State must prove that a death occurred, but there is ......
-
Brown v. State
...that it exclude every reasonable inference and reasonable hypothesis. Dunson v. State, 202 Ga. 515, 521 (43 SE2d 504); Wrisper v. State, 193 Ga. 157, 164 (17 SE2d 714) and cases cited." Samsell v. State, 222 Ga. 235, 238, 149 S.E.2d 367 (1966).In addition, it would appear to us that in orde......